Posted on 03/24/2002 7:03:09 PM PST by scripter
NOUN: 1. An idea that has been demonstrated as true or is assumed to be so demonstrable.
2. Mathematics A proposition that has been or is to be proved on the basis of explicit assumptions.
ETYMOLOGY: Late Latin therma, from Greek, from therein, to look at, from theros, spectator.
FB: "I'm not necessarily claiming ID to be a theory so much as a theorem. As a theorem it works much more nicely that random chance."
I'm still lost. According to the American Heritage Dictionary On-Line (Edition of 2000), if it's a theorem, you're assuming it to be true.
When are you going to give proof of macro-evolution, of the descent of the platypus, of the descent of euglena, of the descent of the bat, of the descent of eukaryotes, of the of the descent of mammals and birds, of the descent of man. When are you going to find the numerous missing links to prove evolution? When are you going to show the proof of abiogenesis? When are you going to give the proof that monkeys can paint Rembrandts or write Hamlet? When are you going to give proof that a single gene has indeed been created through gradual evolution? When are you going to prove that God does not exist? When are you going to give proof that the eye, the flagellum, the cilia, and fruits evolved gradually?
In other words, when are Darwinists are going to give proof of anything?
Well, that's different. Surely we cannot doubt Robin Williams, one of the greatest scientists of this or any other century!
Ah, I assume you've put a "hex" on what we were discussing.
Nice touch.
Been pinging you on this for a while. You tried to say that the whole reptile-jaws-to-mammal-ear-bones thing was just Cuffey's fakey drawing. (How did he get away with that?)
Why do mammalian embryos echo this process in their development? Coincindence?
Check out the pic in #859.
That's a genuine "fahrvfignewton" (VW "Beetle") in the TROLL's hand.
Ja!
Unter "Aurora" Brücke....
Funny you should mention the above. I really think of those as proof against evolution. Here's why: although these creatures are allegedly mutating a lot, they are still viruses, still bacteria, still the same insects. Now one would think that if evolution is true, we would see more change in these creatures than just a new resistance to a drug. That can happen with a small single mutation in a single gene or by other means. As I have pointed out on these threads, you need a lot more than that to get from bacteria to man. You really need the transformation of organisms and this is not happening in the above cases. This transformation has never been observed in any of these organisms even though they seem to quite easily adapt themselves to new circumstances. Since adaptation to the environment is supposedly the engine of evolution, one would think that for example some of these viruses would have become bacteria by now.
BTW the above also deals with the problems of abiogenesis. Some evolutionists have said that because viruses are made of RNA only that this is the way life started. However, viruses do not reproduce. They are parasites and can only replicate through infecting a host cell. The fact that in spite of the tremendous amount of research on viruses by the medical community, no evolution of these viruses into self-replicating organisms has been seen is strong proof against both the theory of evolution and theories of abiogenesis.
I am not sure that you can say that the response is due to the same protein. We know far less about biology than we think we know. We do know though that in some cases certain actions and reactions are controlled by more than one gene, by more than one protein. Man probably has another regulator that is affecting this response which the guinea pig does not have. And this you see is one of the problems with evolution. It claims to give an answer to questions when the answer may well lie elsewhere. It said the appendix was just a vestigial organ, it was not, it had a purpose. It said that non-coding DNA was junk, it was not, it had a purpose. We are far from knowing all the answers yet. We do not even know exactly what all the genes are in humans, let alone what the purpose of every one of them is. Our biggest lack though is in the knowledge of the complex interrelationships between cells. We are not even close to an answer on that.
It shows nothing of the sort. A favorable mutation is one that, by definition, confers a survival advantage to the organism. An organism with an advantage has a better chance of reproducing, thus of spreading the mutation. An unfavorable mutation tends to be bred out of a population, and a neutral mutation remains in the population at pretty much a stable frequency. The spread of mutations throughout a population is not random, nor does it take a long time. This is all basic biology, which is usually taught in freshman level biology courses."
Let's take this one step at a time. Darwin's view was that if an individual had a mutation it had a 100% chance of being passed on to the next generation because he thought the traits of the parents "melded" in the progeny. Mendellian genetics showed this is not the case. First of all, if a new gene is recessive, it will never spread through the species. Now, even on the 50/50 chance that it would be a dominant gene, the chances of its spreading are pretty thin indeed. Remember, this is a new gene, noone else in the species has it. When the individual mates with another the chance will be 50/50 the progenitor will get the gene. If the progenitor does not marry a sister which got the gene (on the 50/50 chance also), the chances are 50/50 again. If it does not marry a cousin (who through a 1 in 4 chance got the gene), or if he was an only child the chances will be 50/50 again. We are already down to a 1/8th chance in just 3 generations of this very good gene from spreading. Even in a small population, the chances of this gene spreading are slim. That is why Kirmura had to invent (out of whole cloth) the genetic drift concept - to try to solve the problem of genetics. It was also one of the reasons Gould said that evolution took place in small populations - because it was so hard to spread even a very good new gene through a large population. So yes, Mendellian genetics does make evolution very hard - and Mendellian genetics is taught in high school biology classes (but its consequences to the theory of evolution are not which is why we need real science taught in schools not evolution).
There is not one now either - just a bunch of rants from atheists like Dawkings and some on this forum whose names shall not be mentioned to protect the guilty.
Being a non-evolutionist, I have a very highly developed BS meter.
Definitions are proof of nothing. We had enough of this nonsense here already. Back up your theory with facts instead of rhetoric.
In evolutionary terms you would have something not predicted - devolution. Remember, evolution keeps creating more fitness not less, so poor Henry Adams characterized himself a disproof against evolution. BTW - he thought that Darwinism was just another passing fancy.
Ms Cleo also makes predictions which have been proven after the fact - does that make her a great scientist?
The answer is no. Predictions are scientific proof only when all the predictions are proven to be true. Any charlatan can make some predictions that turn out to be true - and Darwin was an excellent charlatan. I have shown some important predictions of Darwin, pretty central to his theory that have been proven false: brachyocephalism, melding of parental traits, proof of evolution from the fossil record, the malthusian basis of evolution, to name just some. So no, his predictions prove him a charlatan, not a scientist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.